Glenn Greenwald has some very interesting things to say on the subjects of 'fake news' and 'Russian interference'.

Exactly what I was thinking. I think Chomsky missed a couple of vital points too; Clinton cheated her way to the primary. There's plenty of evidence for that, including:
http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/

So in essence, regardless of whether she was running against the worst possible human being in the world (I guess we came pretty close heh heh) she should never have been allowed to even run, let alone win.

Also, he discusses how her policies are overall better, however seems to forget there is always a discrepancy between what a politician says, and what they do.

If the "Liberal Elite" within the Democratic Party hadn't been so pigheaded and worked against Bernie at every turn, and maybe accepted him as a candidate, then maybe this interview would be with President Sanders.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz being immediately appointed to the head of Clinton's campaign after the Wikileaks revealed how she was undermining Sanders behind the scenes showed just how out of touch the party had become. Without realizing it, the "Liberal Elite" of the Democratic Party chose Trump to become the next president.

Meanwhile, Lawrence Lessig---who was running on the single most important issue facing American Democracy today---couldn't even get on the ballot during the primaries.

If Hillary couldn't beat an unknown socialist in a fair fight, why did the Democratic party think she could beat any Republican front runner?

Did they really think that no one would read the wikileaks? Did they think that none of their backroom shenanigans to keep additional candidates from running (e.g. Lawrence Lessig) and push Clinton to the front of the pile just because it was her turn would be a winning strategy? It backfired, and it turned people off.

Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic Party, basically handed the presidency to Trump.

*doublepromote

Superb quality, this one.

The Blame Cannons are already in firing position. It's the fault of Glenn Greenwald and David Sirota, of Abby Martin and Kevin Gosztola, of Bernie and his BernieBros, of WikiLeaks and Assange, and Putin most of all.

Anything but 40 years of fuck-the-plebs politics.

If true then Americans need to find out what the heck is going on with Trump.
That being said:
Id take a Russian love more than Huma Abedin , the right hand of Hillary Clinton whose parents are fronts to Muslim terrorist groups.

YET again divert from Hillary's self inflected wounds.

No more fake whores can saver her.
More more main stream media can saver her.
The bitch is done.



WIKILEAKS: Podesta to Hillary’s Aide, ‘She’s Acting Like A RETARD – She Smells Like Boiled Cabbage, Urine And FARTS’

Kevin Gosztola's beautiful rundown of how the Clinton campaign tries to dodge, evade and spin the Podesta emails:

https://shadowproof.com/2016/10/20/clinton-campaign-makes-wildly-inconsistent-claims-emails-published-wikileaks/

Donna Brazile, in particular, needs to up her game. When Jordan Chariton kept pressing her on the issue, I almost felt sorry for her. Almost.

His follow-up is less entertaining, visually, but contains a lot more information.

Now this... well, this is twelve levels of wierd, if not more:

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/10/20/extraordinary-plot-wikileaks-founder-foiled-new-evidence-comes-light/

The allegations themselves were wierd enough, but this and the underlying "investigations" bear so much resemblence to shit you read in 1$ crime stories that I can't make heads or tails of it. Wierd as fuck.

Among the Podesta emails, there are some rather refreshing ones, like this one from Brent J. Budowsky to Podesta:

"Considering that a) Hillary's campaign has become close to 100% negative with attacks on Bernie, b) she is running to serve Obama's third term, c) her latest move is to escalate her use of Wall Street money and Super PAC's to pursue her negative attacks against Bernie, d) a growing number of her black surrogates have moved beyond supporting her record to openly lying about Bernie's record, and e) before this latest move her favorable ratings were dangerously low and her distrust numbers were dangerously high, (...)"

B and C are both a bit mind boggling imo.

When it comes to Wikileaks, i'd rather have them doing what they do than not doing at all, but that's just me.

I'm basically done with defending WikiLeaks as well, after the shit they pulled with the leaks of Turkish data. Completely irresponsible, that one.

However, WikiLeaks doesn't need credibility -- the data does. And the data they published vis-á-vis Clinton/Podesta/DNC is, as of now, solid. There was one fake document, but that was shown to have been injected by someone other than WL.

"Strong bias" -- oh, I do have a strong bias. Plural, as in biases, actually. For instance, I'm disinclined to take anything the US intelligence agencies say at face value, given how they manufactured more than one casus belli. I don't put much weight into (un-)official statements in general, but especially since all the misinformation they spread about issues like the coup in Honduras or the actions of Nazi militias in Ukraine.

In this particular case, however, my argument is much simpler: Occam's razor seems much more likely than malicious intent. Propaganda outlets on both sides are run by people. Maybe the propaganda outlet Sputnik intentionally twisted the content of email, or maybe they just fucked up, like people are wont to do. Maybe someone intentionally fed Trump this bad info, maybe his people are just as incompetent as he is.

There are too many parts in this that include people who have more than once proven themselves to be utterly incompetent, or in complete ignorance of even the concept of truth. I don't think Trump gives a shit about truth or facts, he strikes me as the typical blowhard who spouts whatever shit comes to mind, and spins stories on the fly like a 4-year-old when caught red-handing.

No need for a conspiracy there, with all this incompetence, naiveté and plain disregard for facts.

So when they keep on pushing the Russian angle in this, it just seems like a desperate attempt to conjure up the old unifying enemy. Why worry about Russian propaganda when there's plenty on FOX and MSNBC/CNN? Why worry about Russian hackers when you accept the unbelievably insecure method of eletronic votes, partly without paper trails, and completely controlled by private companies?

It's just very strange to an outsider like me to see them focus on perceived external influences when the internals are a complete clusterfuck. And this presidential election is the biggest clusterfuck I've seen in 30 years, which doesn't mean much, admittedly.

That said, we can't just be looking at it from the outside with binoculars, not when people are back to full-blown Cold War rhetoric. When the ruling class in the US and/or the ruling class in Russia start their pissing contests and other forms of grandstanding, it's usually brown people who pay the price, like they have been in Syria for the last couple of years. And Libya. And Yemen. And Somalia. And Afghanistan, And Iraq. And Pakistan.

Personally, all the rhetoric about "standing up to Russian aggression" and similar nonsense makes me keenly aware that the bridge just outside my hometown was constructed with a shaft to place explosives in, to slow down advancing Soviet troops... so yes, I would very much like to bitch-slap all these warmongerers on both sides, but particularly the ones in the US since they are currently the ones racking up the highest death toll.

Edit: I should have made it clearer. Yes, WL is absolutely biased against Clinton and they do seem to act in support of Trump. Assange in particular. Which bums me out to no end, since I actually met the guy in person when they presented WL at the 26C3.

I wouldn't in any way suggest that Olberman's credibility is unassailable, however i wouldn't put it one iota above wikileaks anymore.

Your own fairly strong bias not withstanding, i completely understand why wouldn't trust government bodies. However Greenwald's article (as much as i got through) seem to hing entirely on that premise that you can't prove this all hatches from some shadowy russian agency or from the desk of Putin himself. And on that he is probably right, even if US intelligence has proof they'd like not publicly air it.

But to ignore the body of trump's comments, people who've worked for him, his own dealings and associations, isn't 'helping' either. And to do it you have to really want to believe in an organization which increasingly fails to meet its promises and seems to be operating under its own agenda, and a man who seems far more interested in promoting his brand.

To me the point of the video is to demonstrate how easily it is to manipulate Trump, and certainly nothing i saw in that article you posted dissuades me from that.

Argument pro plain incompetence/stupidity: https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/in-the-democratic-echo-chamber-inconvenient-truths-are-recast-as-putin-plots/

On a personal note: Olberman throwing accusations at foreign governments without solid evidence while claiming that WikiLeaks "hacks Podesta's email" is not helping his credibility. He's always been prone for exaggeration, but at a time when your military is bombing people in nearly a dozen countries and you're fighting a proxy-war against a nuclear-armed superpower in Syria, going off on an almost McCarthy-ite rant is not helping.

Which of these is most disappointing?

A. That this is what wikileaks has become? I had such high hopes.

B. That this kind of idiot can actually be a realistic candidate for president?

C. That so many... individuals... actually support him.

That's not "underground" reporting. It's Jordan Chariton of TYT, providing additional content besides the more professional coverage straight from the trail. Unlike CNN, they don't have the personnel to create everything in a studio, so it's either this sort of coverage through Facebook videos or no coverage at all.

And frankly, I prefer this less-than-professional coverage with actual content over CNN's professional coverage without content.

As for the question whether it's ok to expose these emails, Glenn Greenwald covered it yesterday.

Finally, whether or not there's anything worth reporting: Lee Fang on Democracy Now.